↓ Skip to main content

Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: a Developmental Biology Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: a Developmental Biology Perspective
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11886-018-0968-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Punashi Dutta, Joy Lincoln

Abstract

This review aims to highlight the past and more current literature related to the multifaceted pathogenic programs that contribute to calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) with a focus on the contribution of developmental programs. Calcification of the aortic valve is an active process characterized by calcific nodule formation on the aortic surface leading to a less supple and more stiffened cusp, thereby limiting movement and causing clinical stenosis. The mechanisms underlying these pathogenic changes are largely unknown, but emerging studies have suggested that signaling pathways common to valvulogenesis and bone development play significant roles and include Transforming Growth Factor-β (TGF-β), bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), Wnt, Notch, and Sox9. This comprehensive review of the literature highlights the complex nature of CAVD but concurrently identifies key regulators that can be targeted in the development of mechanistic-based therapies beyond surgical intervention to improve patient outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 25%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Engineering 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,494,013
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#282
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,067
of 332,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.